stevestojan Posted April 8, 2005 Share Posted April 8, 2005 http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/08/jackson.trial/index.html If Jacko goes free, everyone on that Jury should be shot.... I think we have enough independent witnesses giving the same stories to lock him up for life. I mean, if this was anyone besides the multi millionaire (billionaire?) Michael Jackson, this trial would have been done and over with.. sorry, but this pervert should be locked up... If no one had ever discovered he could sing, he'd be some guys B word already... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted April 8, 2005 Share Posted April 8, 2005 The damage Michael Jackson has caused... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elcrusho Posted April 8, 2005 Share Posted April 8, 2005 So when are you moving back to B-Lo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted April 8, 2005 Author Share Posted April 8, 2005 So when are you moving back to B-Lo? 300021[/snapback] I make the 22 hour drive next thursday.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted April 8, 2005 Share Posted April 8, 2005 I think we have enough independent witnesses giving the same stories to lock him up for life. 300011[/snapback] i dunno, eyewitness accounts can sometimes be sketchy. especially with someone like jacko... i saw a white male... i saw a black male... i saw a white female... i saw a black female... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted April 8, 2005 Author Share Posted April 8, 2005 i dunno, eyewitness accounts can sometimes be sketchy. especially with someone like jacko... i saw a white male... i saw a black male... i saw a white female... i saw a black female... 300039[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarthur31 Posted April 9, 2005 Share Posted April 9, 2005 http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/08/jackson.trial/index.html If Jacko goes free, everyone on that Jury should be shot.... I think we have enough independent witnesses giving the same stories to lock him up for life. I mean, if this was anyone besides the multi millionaire (billionaire?) Michael Jackson, this trial would have been done and over with.. sorry, but this pervert should be locked up... If no one had ever discovered he could sing, he'd be some guys B word already... 300011[/snapback] If the D.A. woulda spent just a few seconds of his witnesses' time to get their stories straight, I'm sure this trial would be over. Plus, you need to bring in credible people who aren't out for $$$$ either. The D.A. should be the first one shot if these proceedings fall apart! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted April 9, 2005 Share Posted April 9, 2005 http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/08/jackson.trial/index.html If Jacko goes free, everyone on that Jury should be shot.... I think we have enough independent witnesses giving the same stories to lock him up for life. I mean, if this was anyone besides the multi millionaire (billionaire?) Michael Jackson, this trial would have been done and over with.. sorry, but this pervert should be locked up... If no one had ever discovered he could sing, he'd be some guys B word already... 300011[/snapback] Would be nice if they could get some witness without $$ motivation or an axe to grind. However, these witnesses may be enough.MJ- will never make it if he gets sentenced...--unless they put him in isolation/or away from the main population. Sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted April 9, 2005 Share Posted April 9, 2005 Would be nice if they could get some witness without $$ motivation or an axe to grind. However, these witnesses may be enough.MJ- will never make it if he gets sentenced...--unless they put him in isolation/or away from the main population. Sad. 300314[/snapback] ps--I HIGHLY doubt he gets convicted...He is too big a star....The jury won't do it unless they have him on tape or have DNA evidence---which they don't have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted April 9, 2005 Share Posted April 9, 2005 Here's the Devil's Advocate answer to why Jacko may get off: He's not on trial for any of the past deeds that these people are testifying about. He may be guilty of all his past deeds, but if the jury is convinced that he is not guilty of the crime he is charged - molesting a child who is from a family of lying grifters, he may legitimately get off. This family has been shown to have lied to get money out of a store & it's not much of a stretch to think they saw Jacko as an easy mark. If he gets off, it's because they never prosecuted him for the crimes against the honest & believable witnesses. Want to blame someone for Jacko being a free man-blame the DA's office for choosing the worst possible case to prosecute, not the jury if they let him go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted April 9, 2005 Share Posted April 9, 2005 Here's the Devil's Advocate answer to why Jacko may get off: He's not on trial for any of the past deeds that these people are testifying about. He may be guilty of all his past deeds, but if the jury is convinced that he is not guilty of the crime he is charged - molesting a child who is from a family of lying grifters, he may legitimately get off. This family has been shown to have lied to get money out of a store & it's not much of a stretch to think they saw Jacko as an easy mark. If he gets off, it's because they never prosecuted him for the crimes against the honest & believable wittnesses. Want to blame someone for Jacko being a free man-blame the DA's office for choosing the worst possible case to prosecute, not the jury if they let him go. 300317[/snapback] true..good point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan III Posted April 9, 2005 Share Posted April 9, 2005 Here's the Devil's Advocate answer to why Jacko may get off: He's not on trial for any of the past deeds that these people are testifying about. He may be guilty of all his past deeds, but if the jury is convinced that he is not guilty of the crime he is charged - molesting a child who is from a family of lying grifters, he may legitimately get off. This family has been shown to have lied to get money out of a store & it's not much of a stretch to think they saw Jacko as an easy mark. If he gets off, it's because they never prosecuted him for the crimes against the honest & believable witnesses. Want to blame someone for Jacko being a free man-blame the DA's office for choosing the worst possible case to prosecute, not the jury if they let him go. 300317[/snapback] All good points.. but IMO if it looks close.. Jacko will pull a Roman Polanski and never come back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted April 9, 2005 Share Posted April 9, 2005 All good points.. but IMO if it looks close.. Jacko will pull a Roman Polanski and never come back. 300322[/snapback] why would he do that????-he has no passport.....and he wouldnt get bail.....--or WOULD he?? hmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted April 9, 2005 Share Posted April 9, 2005 Here's the Devil's Advocate answer to why Jacko may get off: He's not on trial for any of the past deeds that these people are testifying about. He may be guilty of all his past deeds, but if the jury is convinced that he is not guilty of the crime he is charged - molesting a child who is from a family of lying grifters, he may legitimately get off. This family has been shown to have lied to get money out of a store & it's not much of a stretch to think they saw Jacko as an easy mark. If he gets off, it's because they never prosecuted him for the crimes against the honest & believable witnesses. Want to blame someone for Jacko being a free man-blame the DA's office for choosing the worst possible case to prosecute, not the jury if they let him go. 300317[/snapback] Why do you keep saying Jacko, and getting off? kinda sounds perverted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 9, 2005 Share Posted April 9, 2005 http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/08/jackson.trial/index.html If Jacko goes free, everyone on that Jury should be shot.... I think we have enough independent witnesses giving the same stories to lock him up for life. I mean, if this was anyone besides the multi millionaire (billionaire?) Michael Jackson, this trial would have been done and over with.. sorry, but this pervert should be locked up... If no one had ever discovered he could sing, he'd be some guys B word already... 300011[/snapback] Big problem being that this witness testimony does NOT speak directly to the charges against him. He's not charged with being a "sick freak", he's charged with specific instances of abusing a child who, for example, is NOT Macaulay Culkin. There's a very good case to be made that such testimony as "He molested Culkin", in not speaking directly to the actual charges, is very good grounds for appeal on the basis that such testimony is not evidence of the actual crime he's charged with but merely serves to prejudice the jury. (And don't argue "It establishes a pattern of behavior" with me, as he's not charged for a "pattern of behavior", he's charged with specific instances of a crime.) Reasonably, Michael Jackson is a seriously messed up freak who should be locked up...and the prosecution is running such a weak case chock full of BS that he could and probably should legitimately be found "not guilty. The buffoons running this case are making OJ's prosecutors look like geniuses...take an easily impeachable complainant, and build a case around him that's SO weak that they have to introduce testimony not directly related to the charges to cover up their fear that they can't get a guilty verdict on the case itself. It'll be a miracle if they get a guilty verdict that stands up on appeal...and the prosecution ought to be slapped silly for butchering this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted April 9, 2005 Share Posted April 9, 2005 Big problem being that this witness testimony does NOT speak directly to the charges against him. He's not charged with being a "sick freak", he's charged with specific instances of abusing a child who, for example, is NOT Macaulay Culkin. There's a very good case to be made that such testimony as "He molested Culkin", in not speaking directly to the actual charges, is very good grounds for appeal on the basis that such testimony is not evidence of the actual crime he's charged with but merely serves to prejudice the jury. (And don't argue "It establishes a pattern of behavior" with me, as he's not charged for a "pattern of behavior", he's charged with specific instances of a crime.) Reasonably, Michael Jackson is a seriously messed up freak who should be locked up...and the prosecution is running such a weak case chock full of BS that he could and probably should legitimately be found "not guilty. The buffoons running this case are making OJ's prosecutors look like geniuses...take an easily impeachable complainant, and build a case around him that's SO weak that they have to introduce testimony not directly related to the charges to cover up their fear that they can't get a guilty verdict on the case itself. It'll be a miracle if they get a guilty verdict that stands up on appeal...and the prosecution ought to be slapped silly for butchering this case. 300371[/snapback] I thought I heard on the news that MacCauley Caulkin denies any molestation or abuse from MJ. He should know wouldnt he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunTheBall Posted April 9, 2005 Share Posted April 9, 2005 If OJ can get off for the murders he committed, then anyone can get off for anything. " And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests" -Johnny Cockran, The Chewbacca Defense Our law system is a fuggin joke run by fuggin jokers. RTB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corp000085 Posted April 9, 2005 Share Posted April 9, 2005 This case isn't half over yet. I'm sure the procecution will pull all these ends together, or at least in theory they should. LA learned its first and second mistake with rodney king and oj. I'd hope they're not looking to make a third with this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted April 9, 2005 Share Posted April 9, 2005 This case isn't half over yet. I'm sure the procecution will pull all these ends together, or at least in theory they should. LA learned its first and second mistake with rodney king and oj. I'd hope they're not looking to make a third with this one. What about Robert Blake? Where's the outrage THERE? And that just happened last month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted April 9, 2005 Share Posted April 9, 2005 Here's the Devil's Advocate answer to why Jacko may get off: He's not on trial for any of the past deeds that these people are testifying about. He may be guilty of all his past deeds, but if the jury is convinced that he is not guilty of the crime he is charged - molesting a child who is from a family of lying grifters, he may legitimately get off. This family has been shown to have lied to get money out of a store & it's not much of a stretch to think they saw Jacko as an easy mark. If he gets off, it's because they never prosecuted him for the crimes against the honest & believable witnesses. Want to blame someone for Jacko being a free man-blame the DA's office for choosing the worst possible case to prosecute, not the jury if they let him go. 300317[/snapback] Right on the money, my feelings exactly. Plus, why is nobody saying that the parents need to take some responsibility on this? (Ok, there I go with the personal accountability stuff which is obviously lost in our country). It's not like there weren't rumors flying around for over a decade, yet you send your kid to Neverland Ranch anyway?! WTF? There's no way in hell these parents weren't trying to set MJ up. Personally, I don't think he did anything wrong in this instance either. He may have in the past, but not in this case. Too many inconsistencies in the stories, so I feel it was obviously an attempt to get cash from MJ. My 2 cents. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts